6 Ways Atheists Can Band Together to Fight Religious Fundamentalism

If atheists were as politically organized as the religious right, we could accomplish a world of good in combating theocracy and standing up for human rights and secularism. But whenever an atheist political alliance is proposed, the objection is inevitably raised that "atheists don’t all agree," and that this would be an insurmountable obstacle to forming a unified political movement.

I believe, however, that this objection overstates the difficulty we would face. In fact, atheists have more in common than most people realize.

It’s true that we disagree, and would be expected to disagree, about issues unrelated to atheism. But just by virtue of being a minority, sharing a godless outlook on the world, we tend to see things that non-atheists often overlook – things like the harm done by faith-based zealotry, the undeserved privileges granted to religious people, and the unfounded assumption that religious belief is the only source of morality. And whether we like it or not, we have a common enemy in the theocrats and fundamentalists who want to oppress us, silence us and punish us harshly for the imaginary crime of not sharing their peculiar superstitions. Even if nothing else unites us, this gives us ample reason to band together to defend our rights against the people who are trying to take them away.

There’s much historical precedent for this. In trying to organize, we wouldn’t be trying to create something completely new or do something that’s never been done before. On the contrary, all atheists have to do is follow in the footsteps of the many other successful political movements that have organized to fight for a common cause, despite having a membership that doesn’t agree on other issues.

A telling example, as my friend and fellow blogger Greta Christina suggests, is the gay rights movement. Obviously, gay, lesbian and bisexual people don’t think alike about everything, and why should they? What do they have in common, after all, other than not being straight? In spite of this, gay rights groups have organized and fought for equality very effectively, and they’ve brought about a sea change in public opinion. They’ve won major legal victories such as ending the military’s discriminatory "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, securing the passage of a federal hate-crimes law, and establishing the right to marry under the laws of six states and the District of Columbia. Anti-gay discrimination has by no means ended, but these are tremendous political victories that would have been unthinkable just one or two decades ago, and large, supportive majorities among the younger generations promise more advances in the near future.

Atheists, who are treated as a despised minority just as gay people were and often still are, should use the success of the gay-rights movement as our template. We don’t need to be a political party with a platform specifying what we’d do about every issue — we just need to reach agreement on the issues we have in common and that affect us the most. And if there are a few oddball atheists who care nothing for equality and don’t want to join our effort, or who think that religion should have special privileges and shouldn’t be criticized, forget about them. We don’t need them. Given that atheists make up as much as 12 percent of the population of America, over 36 million people, a political movement that united even a fraction of us would be a formidable voting bloc.

So what do atheists have in common? What would the agenda of an atheist political movement look like? Here’s my modest proposal for the issues we can unite around:

1. Atheists can be good people.

This seems so obvious it’s not even worth saying, much less uniting around politically. But it is. Millions of religious people, not just in conservative red states but even in the allegedly liberal regions of the country, hold the prejudiced belief that religion is the only possible means of acquiring morality, the only possible justification for being a good person and treating others with respect and kindness. The inevitable corollary is that being an atheist necessarily means being hate-filled, selfish and untrustworthy. This prejudice is undoubtedly the reason majorities say they wouldn’t vote for an atheist candidate for president, even if that atheist was a well-qualified member of their own party.

This is a point that atheists from across the political spectrum should agree on, and one that’s more than sufficient to build a political movement on by itself. For obvious reasons, atheists don’t want to see religious beliefs being used as the basis for law. We don’t believe that religion should be outlawed, or that religious people should be banned from preaching their beliefs, but we want the laws and the government to be truly secular; we want that wall of separation between church and state to be reinforced, built up and topped with sandbags and barbed wire. We demand that laws affecting all of us be justified by reasons and evidence that anyone can examine, and not merely by private faith.

Since church-state separation is constantly under assault by theocrats, this issue alone ought to be enough to occupy politically motivated and energized atheists. There are the never-ending efforts to water down science teaching in schools and replace it with creationism and other pseudoscience, some of it by hostile school boards, some of it by teachers who preach in class on their own initiative. There are state, county and city legislatures bent on putting Ten Commandments monuments, crosses and Christian manger scenes on government property, or opening legislative sessions with sectarian prayer. There are government programs that pour money into the coffers of churches, especially the George W. Bush faith-based initiative, which President Obama hasn’t reined in despite his campaign promise to do so. And there’s the religious language inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance and put on money, which sends a subtle message that atheists are outsiders and second-class citizens.

In the United States, the First Amendment is a bulwark against hate-speech laws, but still not a complete defense. Too many colleges and universities, for example, have "speech codes" that don’t stop at the legitimate goal of preventing bullying or harassment, but which punish students for constitutionally protected speech if their ideas are deemed offensive, disruptive, or upsetting to others.

Atheists from across the political spectrum should have no trouble understanding why these laws are a terrible idea. Even if written with the best of intentions, rules that ban "disparaging" or "offensive" speech are inevitably perverted and used by hostile majorities to silence unpopular minorities. After all, the very existence of atheists is considered highly offensive by millions of religious people who’d like nothing better than to censor us.

4. Greater support for science and reason.

Atheists should understand, and generally do understand, that irrational and dangerous faith flourishes in societies that don’t value evidence and rational thinking. Surveys show that less educated people are more likely to believe in demons, creationism, biblical literalism, and all other kinds of harmful superstitions. And as a growing population strains the bounds of what the Earth can support, as our technology makes us more and more powerful, it’s crucial to let science and reason guide us if we’re going to thread the needle and avoid disaster. If we don’t, as Carl Sagan said, then sooner or later "this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

Atheists have good reason to oppose irrationality in whatever form it rears its head: from religious fundamentalists who try to inject creationism into schools, to anti-vaccine activists who want to get rid of our most effective defense against killer diseases. We ought to advocate a society where science is respected and valued as the most reliable arbiter of truth, where scientists have the funding and the tools needed to do their job, and where politicians take scientific consensus into account; and we ought to act in concert to slap down any purveyor of pseudoscience who tries to claim there are other ways of knowing superior to reason.

5. Support for marriage equality and LGBT rights.

More than anyone else, atheists ought to have sympathy for oppressed minorities whose oppression has historically been justified by appealing to religion, and no group fits that definition better than LGBT people. The arguments against marriage equality and gay rights are purely religious in nature, with no legitimate secular basis. And for the most part, the bigots who make these arguments don’t even try to disguise this.

Left unexplained by all these people is why any group’s opinions about God’s desires should influence lawmaking in a secular, democratic republic like ours. Should we ban alcohol and coffee because Mormons think they’re sinful to consume, or require all women to go veiled in public because Wahhabi Muslims think we should, or outlaw zippers because the Amish reject them? If not, why should Catholic views about marriage be any more relevant?

I grant it’s possible that some atheists are anti-gay, even if their position is based on nothing more than a gut feeling of "ick, gay people are gross" (which is more or less the only rationale for homophobia, once you can no longer rely on God’s decrees regarding the proper usage of genitalia). But in my experience, the overwhelming majority of atheists do support equal rights for LGBT people, and recognize the religious arguments against homosexuality as the rank bigotry they are.

6. Greater support for reproductive choice.

With this point, I know I’m wading into deeper waters, and I anticipate that agreement won’t be as high as with others. Nevertheless, atheists have a very good reason to support strong protection of reproductive choice through comprehensive sex ed, free access to contraception, and the availability of safe, legal abortion.

Many religions, especially the fundamentalist ones that atheists fear the most, demand their followers have as many children as they possibly can. And when religion has the power to make this the law of the land, women and children both suffer. Women are forced to endure the direct risks that pregnancy and childbirth pose to their health and life, whether they want to or not; children suffer from deprivation when their parents have larger families than they can reasonably provide for.

In cultures where women’s ability to plan their own families is taken away by theocratic laws, it perpetuates the poverty and dependency that’s fertile soil for harmful superstition to grow. If we, as atheists, want to reduce the numbers and the power of aggressive, fundamentalist religion, our course of action is clear: we ought to be unyielding guardians of a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices.

* * *

I don’t expect that every atheist will line up behind all these goals, though I do believe the majority of atheists support them. Nor do I expect that, in every race, there will be a politician willing to take our side on all these issues. For the foreseeable future, we’ll probably have to make a lot of hard choices between a bad candidate and a marginally less-bad candidate. But this is mainly because of the excessive influence of the religious right, which has successfully convinced politicians of both parties that the way to win elections is to be as right-wing as possible. The stronger and more influential the atheist movement becomes, the more effectively we can counteract this, and the more we can expand the Overton window on the left to create space for genuinely progressive candidates to get elected.

What I find most encouraging about this list is that the goals uniting atheists aren’t supported only by atheists, but ought to be shared by every progressive who supports justice and human rights. This means that atheists should be able to make common cause with other liberal activist groups. There’s real potential for a strong, organized atheist movement to give the country a much-needed jolt of progressive energy. This isn’t an idealistic or unattainable goal, but one that, if we’re willing to work and to organize, lies entirely within our power.

Come on, people, we need to get behind this idea, no matter what our other differences might be!

Andrew T.

This is an excellent and compelling piece…definitely worth a bookmark for handy reference. Good work exposing it on AlterNet, too.

That said, I figure it’ll be a matter of minutes before someone ignores the seven opening paragraphs and reiterates the fallacy that, since he personally disagrees with one or two points, the entire atheist community should capitulate to his demands and refuse to do anything constructive…

http://www.whyihatejesus.blogspot.com/ OMGF

I like this, and I’ve become even more convinced after coming into contact first hand recently with a front for the Xian Reconstructionists. This blog seems like a pretty benign thing until you read into it and find out who finances it. Yes, Ahmanson of Dominionists fame is in the business of trying to move the Overton Window himself although he has to hide his involvement. We need to organize to combat these sorts of things, and we don’t need to hide.

LindaJoy

I think there are already a lot of atheists like me who are very involved with these issues through groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I also participate with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which was founded by baptists and is an interfaith group, but is a strong advocate for the rights of atheists and runs good church/state violation lawsuits. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if a good portion of their membership is now atheists. There is also the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, keeping a good eye on our christian infused military, although they are also an interfaith type group. There’s the Secular Coalition and its college campus branch which is incredibly active. I don’t know if another atheist group is needed as much as a way to round up the herd of cats and notify them when a big issue is on the line and needs tons of supporters.

I would, however, like to see more PR getting to Congress and the media on the fact that the fastest growing number of the population is non-believers. We do need more speakers on the national level that will get those interviews with the top shows. Are there any studies that have been done on how atheists tend to vote?

Ergo Ratio

I know you’d like to wrap #5 and #6 into the mix for good measure, but I think it would be best to leave them out. #5 falls under #2 and #3, and #6 falls under #4. That aside, they are divisive issues even among atheists, and are an easy target for opponents who will use them to shift all attention in any discourse away from #s 1-4.

joy

I agree with all 6 of these ideas, and if ever there’s a politician running that would support these, I would do what I could to support their campaign.

(And I also agree that ffrf and MRFF are both excellent groups, but I don’t know much about the others mentioned).

http://planolions.org TX CHL Instructor

Meh. Organizing Freethinkers is much harder than herding cats. Besides, it doesn’t take a majority to accomplish what you want — witness the slow (for now) and steady destruction of this country (USA) by the muslim superstition. Once they *do* get a majority, of course, it’s all over.

If Freethinkers did manage somehow to organize, then the xtians would immediately go into “deeply offended” mode (aping their muslim counterparts). At least until enough of them are dhimmi-fied by the muslims. The superstition that teaches that killing infidels is not actually murder is going to win.

Which, BTW, I believe is going to happen to Freethinkers too. I was hoping it wasn’t going to be in my lifetime, but sadly, it’s happening faster than I thought it would. Take a look at the UK. There are already “sharia enclaves” where the police are afraid to go, and there are similar areas starting up right here in the US.

Alex Weaver

No “recognition of the humanity and equality of women?” That’s basically redundant with the Gay and Lesbian Equality one in terms of its logic, but unfortunately doesn’t seem to have been taken to heart…

Besides, it doesn’t take a majority to accomplish what you want — witness the slow (for now) and steady destruction of this country (USA) by the muslim superstition.

Not this shit again.

L.Long

As far as 2012 is concerned. Obama is a conservative plant and the Democrats have no real candidate yet. So if a basically OK atheist ran for prez I would vote for him/her just to send a message if for no other reason.

monkeymind

Also, support public education and tuition assistance programs like Pell grants and Natl. Direct Student Loan. It’s what saved me from xtian fundie-dom, since my parents would only pay for a Christian college. I rebelled and put myself through college with scholarships, tuition assistance and work/study- this was just before Reagan started gutting those programs.

http://dangerousintersection.org/ Erich Vieth

I like this set of goals. I agree that the great majority of atheists would embrace all items on this list. Now, where do I sign up?

http://www.daylightatheism.org Ebonmuse

@Erich: As a start, I recommend joining the Freedom from Religion Foundation or the Secular Coalition (or better yet, both!). The FFRF focuses mostly on defending church-state separation and supporting efforts to educate the public about the nontheistic viewpoint, while the SCA concentrates on lobbying elected officials.

other scott

The reasons that Atheists won’t ever band together to vote is that the issues you just listed aren’t always considered the BIG issues. To your average voter the issues are: 1. TAXES 2. TAXES 3. TERRORISM

I mean, the politicians in Australia have managed to turn the illegal entrance of a few thousand people by boat per year into a gigantic political issue in my country, while completely ignoring the fact that 50+ thousand illegals enter our country by plane and overstay their visas each year. All it would take is one political party to throw out some stupid Red Herring like our ‘boat people’ and you’d only be left with 12% of the population still thinking Abortion is even an issue.

http://kagerato.net kagerato

I mean, the politicians in Australia have managed to turn the illegal entrance of a few thousand people by boat per year into a gigantic political issue in my country, while completely ignoring the fact that 50+ thousand illegals enter our country by plane and overstay their visas each year.

At least your plan isn’t to build to a giant fence. And if that doesn’t work, barb wire the top. And if that doesn’t work, electrify it. And if that doesn’t work, add a moat. And if that doesn’t work, add alligators. And if that doesn’t work, hire snipers.

Sometimes I wonder how many degrees of separation exist between “illegal alien” and “nuclear holocaust” in the mind of the typical American.

Australia looks like a paradise of sanity compared to here.

http://darkenedstumbling.blogspot.com/ Leum

kagerato: clearly a nuclear holocaust is less sever than illegal aliens. The holocaust only kills, illegal aliens destroy your culture and your kids start speaking Foreign, and there are brown people everywhere! A nuclear holocaust makes travel impossible so you don’t have an influx of brown people. Really, the best thing that could happen for America is for a bunch of nuclear bombs to be dropped on the US-Mexico border.

http://slrman.wordpress.com James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil

The following has been the mantra of the religious reich and every government. Who are what is attacking changes, but the message is the same. Gay marriage destroys “traditional values” socialism destroys freedom, atheists are attacking god and religion. Always the same message.

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy. It is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

its a great article. i’m a theist but on all these other points i want to stand with you guys. (except abortion – sorry but the unborn kid has rights too). i’m also a straight who wants to support the gay rights campaign. Its about standing against intolerance and discrimination not about whether you believe in God.

i was thinking that you guys really need a name change – these are not just atheist concerns – there are so many theists who are sick of all these intolerant idiotic religious people giving religion a bad name. Whether you are atheist or not is irrelevant to most of those issues. What reasonable thinking person would object to these things? Atheists don’t have a monopoly on rationality you know.

By using atheist as your title you exclude so many people and you discriminate against all the non crazy theists. And these points aren’t really about belief or non belief in god are they?

Adam Lee of Daylight Atheism

Adam Lee is an atheist writer and speaker living in New York City. He created Daylight Atheism to push back against undeserved privileging of religion and to encourage atheists to step out of their closets, into the daylight, and take our rightful place at the table of society’s discourse.